This essay is downloaded by permission of the author from www

This essay is downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where similar articles are available.

Note: The following essay is based on a speech I gave to a gathering of Baptist General Conference pastors and members in the Midwest District during the Spring Theological Workshop of 1997.

Grant Women An Unrestricted Role in the Church

A Look at Some Key Differences Between Complementarians and Egalitarians

In the Areas of Systematic Theology and Hermeneutics

David R. Leigh

When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:16-21, NRSV)

Introduction

The question of whether or not women should hold the same positions as men in the church is a debate that cannot be separated from the important matter of hermeneutics (interpretation), nor from the deepest theological tenets of our faith. Yet, anyone who becomes acquainted with the controversy about women's roles in the church will quickly discover there are those on both sides who claim to represent the biblical view. Those who restrict women from leadership roles claim to do so on the basis of a literalistic interpretation of Scripture. Likewise, those who believe women are called to be full partners with men in leadership claim their interpretation of Scripture is true to the authorial intent of the Bible and is more consistent with how most Evangelicals interpret and apply the Bible.

The need for consistency is axiomatic for any hermeneutic. Consistent interpretation means recognizing that sometimes there is a difference between the literal meaning of a text (its true meaning) and the literalist meaning (its meaning on the surface). For example, let's consider the case of those who advocate the so-called literalistic understanding of Paul's comments disallowing women to teach in 1 Timothy 2. Are these literalists equally consistent and rigid in applying the same method of interpretation to the rest of 1 Timothy 2 and to the rest of the New Testament? Consider just a few examples:

• Do they not only allow, but require with equal rigidity that the men of their churches always and everywhere pray with their hands raised? (1Tm 2:8)

• Do they forbid with equal rigidity women in their churches from wearing braids, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing? (1Tm 2:9)

• Do they teach that women cannot teach because they are more susceptible than men to deception (1Tm 2:14)? If so, then shouldn't they also forbid women from teaching anyone, even other women and children? Do they do this?

• Do they teach that women must have children to be saved? (1Tm 2:15)

• Do their churches keep a list of widows whose material needs are supplied by the church? (1Tm 5:2-16)

Beyond the letter to Timothy, we might ask the same question regarding other parts of the New Testament:

• Do they allow and encourage women to prophesy in their churches? (Ac 2:17-18; 1Co 11:5-10)

• Do they require women to wear veils as a sign of authority? (1Co 11:4-6)

• Do they baptize for the dead? (1Co 15:29)

• Do they insist on worshiping the Lord with tambourines, dancing, and a multiplicity of instrumentation? (cf. Ps 149:3; 150:4)

• Do they encourage and forbid not speaking in tongues? (1Co 14:5, 39)

Even if literalists answer yes to some of these questions, I know of no Evangelicals who can say yes to all. The point is that they are not consistent in their claim to literalism. A new question then arises, "Why then have they singled out the women's issue as their place to be rigid?" What motivates this kind of selective literalism? Why allow braids and pearls, but restrict our pulpits from those who wear them? Why completely ignore raising of hands for men in prayer, yet stubbornly interpret comments from the same chapter to impose supposedly timeless restrictions on women?

My purpose in raising these inconsistencies is to demonstrate that the opposition to letting women lead and teach in the church is 1) driven by something other than an objective, consistent hermeneutic, and 2) needs to be examined and questioned by people who are willing to view Scripture reasonably and who understand that interpretation of Scripture is a science aimed at discovering the author's original meaning, which may not be the same as its apparent meaning.

Who's Who is the Women's Debate?

When it comes to understanding the role of women, there are two major opposing views.

One side, which I prefer to call the hierarchal or patriarchal view, believes the Bible clearly places woman in subjection to man in every sphere of life, especially in marriage and the church. I understand that proponents of that view now like to be called complementarian, but in reality we find nothing complementarian about it. As Ronald Pierce put it, in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, "'complementarity' is really not at the center of their argument. Rather, a unique 'male leadership' in contrast to a 'shared leadership' ... continues to be the issue separating the two camps."

The other side, called the egalitarian or equalitarian view, argues not the opposite (man subject to woman), but that man and woman were created to be full and equal partners in life, especially in marriage and in the ministry of the church.

Yet it is, as Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural speech regarding the U.S. Civil War over slavery: Both sides quote from the same Bible and both pray to the same God. It is my position that, as in the slavery issue, those who would argue theologically for the mandatory subjugation of any part of humanity to some other part of humanity based on created, natural, biological, psychological, or socio-cultural differences between those two parts of humanity have committed a grievous error which cuts to the very heart of the Christian message.

I am willing to grant that proof texts exist that sound at first like they support the subjugation of women, just as proof texts could be found to support the practice of slavery not even a century and a half ago. But as abolitionists rightly saw that deeper theological truths of Scripture needed to guide their interpretation of such passages, so I will argue that a correct overview of biblical theology will find hierarchical and patriarchal interpretations of such passages to be inconsistent with the clear central truths of the gospel, which Jesus intended as a vehicle for bringing release and freedom, not oppression and restriction (Luke 4:16-21).

What the apologist Cornelius Van Til said about evidence against Christianity can also be said of proof texts. He said, "To say that facts might overthrow your system is to deny that there is a system; if there is a system, those facts would form part of it." In other words, we are not going to change each other's minds by arguing over details or over isolated texts. Each of us has a system of belief that includes those texts and understands them differently.

If you would like to know how I deal with the so-called controversial texts, I am making a paper available to you that surveys them (see: "The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church"). And if you'd like to track down some biblical texts used in favor of the egalitarian view, I refer you to the doctrinal statements of Christians for Biblical Equality, signed by some of the most notable Evangelical scholars of our day. It contains lists of such texts.

My purpose here, however, will be to focus on the big picture, the system picture. I realize that in doing so, I am asking for something greater than a change in how you read certain specific passages. I am asking instead, for you to look at issues more fundamental, more pervasive, and more comprehensive, and to be prepared to make a paradigm shift. Such shifts have a tendency to be disorienting at first, but eventually, they prove to bring greater clarity and focus than previously was possible. Therefore, I am going to present a broad-stroke overview on the level of theological presuppositions. In doing this, I cannot help but use passages that shape these presuppositions. But my intent will be to stay with passages that bring clarity to presuppositional issues.

A Theological Basis

How each of us views the women's issue reflects how we understand man and woman in relation to the essential classical categories of systematic theology. Namely: God, or Theology proper; Anthropology; Harmartiology, or the truth about sin; and Soteriology, the study of salvation. These categories in turn obviously affect the questions of Ecclesiology, which is the context of our discussion here, and finally, Eschatology, the end times.

God, or Theology Proper

Egalitarians and hierarchalists actually view God himself in two different ways. One of the chief ways they differ is in their understanding of the Trinity.

Hierarchalists believe that, when Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11 that man is the head of woman, as God is the head of Christ, that Paul was saying women are subordinate to men as, they believe, Christ is subordinate to God. My paper, "The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church," discusses the problems with this view in more detail. For brevity's sake, let me say here, that egalitarians side with the historical church in rejecting as heretical the doctrine of "subordinationism" (the idea that subordination or hierarchy is innate to the Trinity). Rather, they affirm the historically orthodox view expressed in the creeds and Reformed confessions. For example:

The Athanasian Creed (c. 500): "Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such also the Holy Spirit..... And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal with each other and coequal. Thus in all things, as has been stated above, both Trinity and unity and unity in Trinity must be worshipped. So he who desires to be saved should think thus of the Trinity."

The Second Helvetic Confession (16th Century Reformed): "Thus there are not three gods, but three persons, consubstantial, coeternal; distinct with respect to hypostases, and with respect to order, the one preceding the other yet without any inequality. For according to the nature or essence they are so joined together that they are one God, and the divine nature is common to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (5.017)

"HERESIES. Therefore we condemn ... all heresies and heretics who teach ... that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that there is something unequal in it, a greater or a less...." (5.019)

Since Genesis 1:27 tells us, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," we have serious problems with any view that suggests the relationship between man and woman reflects an innate subordination within the Trinity. The egalitarian would rather understand Paul's statements about headship as showing that though man is the source (kephale) of woman in creation, and woman is the source of man in nature (reproduction), yet all things come from God. Therefore, Paul says, in the Lord, both are mutually dependent on each other (1Co 11:11-12), just as the Father, Son and Spirit are mutually interdependent and submit to one another.

Anthropology & Harmartiology

The anthropological questions raised by raising this issue are obvious. Are men and women equal? Do they have the same rights? Are some roles restricted to men, just as childbearing is restricted to women?

Egalitarians argue that there is a created equality that was disrupted by sin (harmartiology) but is restored in Christ (soteriology). To be truly equal means to have the same rights, freedoms and privileges. It also means there can be no discrimination based on our differences. Otherwise our differences make us unequal.

So-called complementarians argue that men and women are equal, spiritually, but that their roles are differentiated so that men are the leaders and women follow. Egalitarians respond: How is it then, that what we declare bound in heaven (spiritual equality) is not bound on earth (equality of rights)? While it is true that due to the Fall man came to rule over the woman, it is also true that "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Ga 3:27-28, italics added). In other words, in redemption there is a nullification of the Fall.

But did "neither" mean for Paul and the early church that there was now to be a functional equality in the church between these groups mentioned in Galatians 3:28? The answer can be seen in how they applied the term "neither" to each of the categories mentioned in this passage. First, the early church understood that Jews and Greeks were now equals in the church. Second, slaves had equal standing in church with masters. Third, there is strong evidence that women served in the church as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders and deacons. These women are also discussed in my paper, "The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church." In fact, no less a theologian than James I. Packer, who has opposed the ordination of women, had to admit that after reviewing the biblical data and the practice of the early church, that "the New Testament papers in particular make it evident that the burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women from the office of teaching and ruling within the congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than on those who challenge it." (J.I. Packer, "Understanding the Differences," in Women, Authority and the Bible, Alvera Mickelson, ed., IVP 1986, p. 296).

Egalitarians conclude male domination was a result of the Fall, and therefore social systems that promote this kind of domination and hierarchy are fallen systems based on sin, not on redemption. Such systems should have no place in the community of redemption.

Soteriology - the Study of Salvation

Stanley Grenz, in his excellent book, Women in the Church (IVP), points out that even if it could be shown from creation that woman is subordinate to man, neither the original creation nor the fallen creation serve as our basis for relating to one another in the church. In the church, we no longer regard one another according to the flesh, but according to the new creation (2Co 5:16-17), according to what we are in Christ. And Galatians 3:28 tells us that in Christ we are no longer male and female.

By being clothed in Christ, we all become his ambassadors, his representatives, his priests. God no longer sees us, or our sin. He sees Jesus. This is equally true of men and women.

To suggest that Adam's sin was dealt with by redemption, so that men can serve God as prophet, priest, and teacher, but that Eve's sin continues to bar her from some or all of these roles, is nothing less than blasphemy against the atonement and the cross of Jesus Christ. In Christ, all sin, Adam's and Eve's, has been totally and irrevocably forgiven. What happened in the Garden no longer matters in the church, just as what happened in our pre-Christian lives no longer matters to God today.

The effect of salvation is not only to restore the equality that was lost; it is to open the door to a partnership that Adam and Eve never had the opportunity to truly explore.

Ecclesiology

Patriarchalists maintain that women are barred from holding authority over men. This notion creates a number of problems. First, it creates serious problems for a congregational system of government in which women may be a majority. What happens if the women out-vote the men and men, like the pastor, must comply with their decision?

Second, it creates a two-tiered caste of membership in which some members (men) are entitled to hold all offices, and other members (women) cannot, being a second class, unable to sit with the adults at the decision making table. There is absolutely no basis in Scripture to suggest the New Testament church had such a division of membership. All members are said to be equal (1Co 12).

But the third and perhaps the most serious problem with this view is that in restricting women from "holding authority over men," hierarchalists not only misrepresent Paul's use of an obscure word in 1 Timothy 2 (see my paper, "The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church."), but they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about biblical leadership and spiritual authority. For when the disciples made the same error by thinking they might someday have authority over each other, or over other followers, this is what happened:

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant...." (Mt 20:25-26, italics added).

To think that men possess authority over others in the church that women cannot possess is based on a seriously flawed notion of biblical leadership that is dangerous and somewhat frightening. The truth is, none of us holds authority over another person.

As far as teaching authoritatively is concerned (i.e. speaking truth that represents God's Word), egalitarians note there are many examples of women being granted this kind of authoritative role. Consider this primary example:

"`In the last days,' God says, `I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'" (Acts 2:17-18)

Paul affirms this role for women in 1 Corinthians 11, where he says women should prophesy with authority on their heads, i.e. authoritatively.

Some of the most conservative Bible commentators define the role of a New Testament prophet as a kind of authoritative teaching and preaching. Consider this definition by John Calvin of what Paul means by "prophets" in 1 Corinthians 12:28:

Let us by Prophets in this passage understand, first of all, eminent interpreters of Scripture, and farther, persons who are endowed with no common wisdom and dexterity in taking a right view of the present necessity of the church, that they may speak suitably to it, and in this way be, in a manner, ambassadors to communicate the divine will.

Calvin goes on to associate prophets with pastors and teachers, noting their similarities, and describing the prophet as one who is especially gifted at confronting the whole church with God's promises and threats, and at helping the church make sound application of God's word. Interestingly, few hierarchalists object to this kind of definition; they even apply it to the modern practice of inspired preaching from the pulpit -- until someone points out that women in the New Testament were considered prophets too!

The Amplified Bible describes the role of the New Testament prophet in 1 Corinthian 14:3 in this way:

... the one who prophesies -- who interprets the divine will and purpose in inspired preaching and teaching -- speaks to men for their upbuilding and constructive spiritual progress and encouragement and consolation. (italics added)

In the March 1984 issue of the Standard, Bethel College (BGC) professors Alvera and Berkeley Mickelson, pointed out that:

Prophecy as defined in 1 Corinthians 14 includes upbuilding, encouragement, edification (vv. 3-4), evangelism (vv. 22-25), careful evaluation (v. 29), teaching (v. 31) -- all the things that make a church an organism of spiritual power.

In other words, if we truly understand what prophets are and do, and we realize that God includes women in that role, then it becomes incongruent to think women should be excluded from other roles based on the idea that teaching or authority may be involved.

The first page of my paper, "The Full Stature of Women as Servants of Christ in His Church," provides a list of specific Old and New Testament examples of women who served in roles usually associated with spiritual authority, including authority to teach, preach, prophesy, and govern.

Eschatology

This is the study of last things. For brevity sake, I won't go deeply into this. But we should note that Jesus did make an eschatological comment that may have tremendous implications for how we deal with the women's issue. He said, "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25). The final word for the Kingdom of God will apparently favor the egalitarians. While this image of a sexless age may seem frightening to some, apparently in paradise there will be something better than sex. The result will be that the greatest will be as the least, the first as the last, women and men will be as angels.

Today we live in tension between the already and the not yet. How we understand the Kingdom as a present and future reality may affect to what degree we think this angelic future should apply to today. We are in this era simultaneously sinners and saints, dead in our sins yet alive to Christ, slaves to men yet free in Christ, Jews and Greeks yet one race in Christ, male and female yet the same and neither in Christ. The Kingdom's present reality calls us to strive after the latter part of each of these simultaneous realities -- saintliness, life, freedom, inclusiveness and equality. To do otherwise is not only inconsistent, it misses the point of gospel that liberates and it grieves the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to all, regardless of gender.

The image we have of Jesus acting as our kephale/head in Ephesians 5 is one of him nurturing and caring for the church so that on the last day he may present her to himself as a radiant bride without imperfection. On that day she will take her place as his co-heir, reigning and judging beside him in full partnership. I often wonder if the church can ever be that bride without blemish while the brides of Christian men are kept from their rightful place as co-heirs with their husbands and as full partners in the church's ministry. Perhaps the very reason this issue has arisen in these last days is because Jesus desires to put on the finishing touches, removing some of the last wrinkles and blemishes. Who better to lead us in what it means to be the bride of Christ, than our own brides? But how can they show us the church's full potential if we will not grant them their full right to reach their full potential as our partners?